Jump to content

47th IL House candidates address gun violence at forum


InterestedBystander

Recommended Posts

 

I think the point you two are trying to make is that the difference between a modern battlefield weapon and a "sporting rifle" is full auto (or burst).

 

 

And that is the difference. It's the difference between a $700 rifle legal for civilians to own and one that now costs > $20,000 for a pre-1986 model and is illegal in Illinois anyway. No modern army hands their infantry carbines which aren't full-auto or burst. It is indeed a large differentiator and the difference between a "military" and "non-military" carbine.

 

 

First and foremost. The line in question:

weapons designed for the battlefield

 

The AR-15 (and AK-47) was originally designed for the battlefield. No if's, and's, or but's. It is the shrunken down version of the AR-10 (which was designed first, and was to compete) to replace the M-1. Designed for the battlefield. It has made its way to civilians by removing the full/auto burst mode because of current laws, but that does not change the history or origin of the weapon.

 

Full auto is a difference indeed, but again....we don't currently train (most of) our infantryman to use full auto or burst ANYWAY. And the dollar amount you mentioned is based on the rarity and law. The difference between a semi vs full auto capable weapon in terms of actual parts is just a few bucks. Nearly every part on a civilian AR-15, and an M-4 some grunt is humping right now is interchangable.

 

For a lot of M4's and M16's deployed right now, you could swap in an AR-15 lower receiver, FCG, and BGG, and they could be used, in combat, in the exact same way......semi auto. I wish I would have kept them, but it is crazy to think that the mags from my dad's M-16 would fit my AR's.

 

I get that AR's and AK's and Tavors that go to civilians do not have full auto/burst....but trying to argue they are not somehow military weapons when they were all originally designed as military weapons, are used by current armies around the world today, and with the exception of features required by law, are identical to their military counter-parts is ridiculous IMO.

 

Origins and interchangeability aside, the ones that we can buy were designed for civilian use, not military.

+1. Question is why are you making the same argument the antis make?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I think the point you two are trying to make is that the difference between a modern battlefield weapon and a "sporting rifle" is full auto (or burst).

 

 

And that is the difference. It's the difference between a $700 rifle legal for civilians to own and one that now costs > $20,000 for a pre-1986 model and is illegal in Illinois anyway. No modern army hands their infantry carbines which aren't full-auto or burst. It is indeed a large differentiator and the difference between a "military" and "non-military" carbine.

 

 

First and foremost. The line in question:

weapons designed for the battlefield

 

The AR-15 (and AK-47) was originally designed for the battlefield. No if's, and's, or but's. It is the shrunken down version of the AR-10 (which was designed first, and was to compete) to replace the M-1. Designed for the battlefield. It has made its way to civilians by removing the full/auto burst mode because of current laws, but that does not change the history or origin of the weapon.

 

Full auto is a difference indeed, but again....we don't currently train (most of) our infantryman to use full auto or burst ANYWAY. And the dollar amount you mentioned is based on the rarity and law. The difference between a semi vs full auto capable weapon in terms of actual parts is just a few bucks. Nearly every part on a civilian AR-15, and an M-4 some grunt is humping right now is interchangable.

 

For a lot of M4's and M16's deployed right now, you could swap in an AR-15 lower receiver, FCG, and BGG, and they could be used, in combat, in the exact same way......semi auto. I wish I would have kept them, but it is crazy to think that the mags from my dad's M-16 would fit my AR's.

 

I get that AR's and AK's and Tavors that go to civilians do not have full auto/burst....but trying to argue they are not somehow military weapons when they were all originally designed as military weapons, are used by current armies around the world today, and with the exception of features required by law, are identical to their military counter-parts is ridiculous IMO.

Origins and interchangeability aside, the ones that we can buy were designed for civilian use, not military.

+1. Question is why are you making the same argument the antis make?

 

The bigger question is why does it matter who or why it was designed?

 

As I said when the 2nd was authored by and far most of the firearms in existence at the time were 'designed for the battlefield' and or regularly used in the battlefield the authors of the 2nd were not stupid, they knew this and they deliberately chose not to exclude arms based on who and why they were designed or where they were used.

 

Arguing military vs civilian is taking the anti-gunner bait and falling into their trap hook line and sinker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to (once again) quote the exact post and quote I responded to.

 

 

 

full story at link

http://www.mysuburbanlife.com/2018/09/16/47th-illinois-house-candidates-address-state-finances-gun-violence-at-forum/aqwgh3v/

......The moderator also posed a question to the candidates regarding banning the manufacture, sale and possession of assault weapons in Illinois.

"I support practical, enforceable laws that keep weapons designed for the battlefield off our streets and out of our communities," Caffrey said.

He added the real problem facing the country is an inability to have a meaningful conversation about guns...…..

 

Mr. Caffrey, if you believe that a light caliber semi-automatic rifle (think AR15) belongs on the modern battlefield, you are incapable of having a meaningful conversation about guns.

 

 

@357 - Because if you want to have a "meaningful conversation", you have to be honest. If being honest ruins your argument, you probably need to rethink your position, or at least try a new angle. (In my original response to Springfield Shooter, I'm pretty sure I said to try a different angle).

 

@Flynn - Your response is an answer looking for an argument that I wasn't making.

 

If you want to know what difference does it make, that is a different question that what I responded to....and you may want to ask that to Springfield shooter....or anyone (everyone) else trying to argue the differences between a military weapon and non-military weapon.

 

My response to THAT question isn't a black and white answer. It is a conflicted view because to me, both sides have validity. Here is an example:

 

PSA has FINALLY started building a complete 8.5" .300 upper with a 9" rail that I want https://palmettostatearmory.com/blem-psa-8-5-300aac-blackout-1-8-phosphate-9-lightweight-m-lok-moe-sob-pistol-kit-5165449005.htmlor https://palmettostatearmory.com/psa-8-5-pistol-length-300aac-blackout-1-8-phosphate-9-m-lok-moe-sob-pistol-kit-5165448985.html (give me that with a nitrite barrel and EPT triggger and I'm sold....I like the 1st rail better than the 2nd. I will replace their +3" can with a Guntec 1.75" stubby.).

 

When they finally offer it, I will build it and most likely put on a LAW tactical folding stock kit. An 8.5" .300blk AR pistol with a folding stock is a crap ton of firepower in a tiny package. It is basically a mix of an AR-15 and an what the MP5 does. As a civie, do I really need this type of firepower in a tiny package? Probably not. Do I want this type of fire power easily available to bad guys and nut jobs (think 80% lowers)? No. And realistically, if there was ever some battle between the US military and civilians (which I don't think would happen), civies would get steam-rolled because things like armed drones and tanks would make short work of us. But with all that said...I CAN see the 2A argument that does not define a particular weapon allowed, and at least having something somewhat useful to be able to fight off a hostile government with is a must. (Again, that was my original point on what angle to take).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Flynn - Your response is an answer looking for an argument that I wasn't making.

 

Just because you don't like the direction the argument has gone, doesn't negate the argument or invalidate it, the entire basis of the military vs civilian is really moot in regards to the Constitution and the right protected in the 2nd.

 

 

 

As a civie, do I really need this type of firepower in a tiny package? Probably not. Do I want this type of fire power easily available to bad guys and nut jobs (think 80% lowers)? No

 

Congrats on the canned, anti-gun hyperbole narrative. What you believe you need, what you believe others should have is for all intents irrelevant in regards to rights.

 

And since you are complaining about going off 'argument' what does 80% paperweight have to do with this argument or anything? Or do you want to venture into what the 80% paperweights were designed for and marketed for? Because it sure wasn't and isn't for military or battlefield use.

 

 

 

And realistically, if there was ever some battle between the US military and civilians (which I don't think would happen), civies would get steam-rolled because things like armed drones and tanks would make short work of us.

 

Look at the recent people vs government unrest across the globe and historical people vs government unrest. There is plenty historical record shows that the entire military doesn't always side with the government and start shooting it's citizens, in fact, the opposite is true many times really mooting this flawed logic that a future potential civil war in the US would be so lopsided. Look at even small current US events like the Bundy Ranch standoff, to see that false hyperbolic claims like 'civies would get steam-rolled' to be a factually false statement.

 

So as you just stated "If being honest ruins your argument, you probably need to rethink your position, or at least try a new angle."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to (once again) quote the exact post and quote I responded to.

 

 

 

 

full story at linkhttp://www.mysuburbanlife.com/2018/09/16/47th-illinois-house-candidates-address-state-finances-gun-violence-at-forum/aqwgh3v/

......The moderator also posed a question to the candidates regarding banning the manufacture, sale and possession of assault weapons in Illinois.

"I support practical, enforceable laws that keep weapons designed for the battlefield off our streets and out of our communities," Caffrey said.

He added the real problem facing the country is an inability to have a meaningful conversation about guns...…..

 

Mr. Caffrey, if you believe that a light caliber semi-automatic rifle (think AR15) belongs on the modern battlefield, you are incapable of having a meaningful conversation about guns.

@357 - Because if you want to have a "meaningful conversation", you have to be honest. If being honest ruins your argument, you probably need to rethink your position, or at least try a new angle. (In my original response to Springfield Shooter, I'm pretty sure I said to try a different angle).

 

@Flynn - Your response is an answer looking for an argument that I wasn't making.

 

If you want to know what difference does it make, that is a different question that what I responded to....and you may want to ask that to Springfield shooter....or anyone (everyone) else trying to argue the differences between a military weapon and non-military weapon.

 

My response to THAT question isn't a black and white answer. It is a conflicted view because to me, both sides have validity. Here is an example:

 

PSA has FINALLY started building a complete 8.5" .300 upper with a 9" rail that I want https://palmettostatearmory.com/blem-psa-8-5-300aac-blackout-1-8-phosphate-9-lightweight-m-lok-moe-sob-pistol-kit-5165449005.htmlor https://palmettostatearmory.com/psa-8-5-pistol-length-300aac-blackout-1-8-phosphate-9-m-lok-moe-sob-pistol-kit-5165448985.html (give me that with a nitrite barrel and EPT triggger and I'm sold....I like the 1st rail better than the 2nd. I will replace their +3" can with a Guntec 1.75" stubby.).

 

When they finally offer it, I will build it and most likely put on a LAW tactical folding stock kit. An 8.5" .300blk AR pistol with a folding stock is a crap ton of firepower in a tiny package. It is basically a mix of an AR-15 and an what the MP5 does. As a civie, do I really need this type of firepower in a tiny package? Probably not. Do I want this type of fire power easily available to bad guys and nut jobs (think 80% lowers)? No. And realistically, if there was ever some battle between the US military and civilians (which I don't think would happen), civies would get steam-rolled because things like armed drones and tanks would make short work of us. But with all that said...I CAN see the 2A argument that does not define a particular weapon allowed, and at least having something somewhat useful to be able to fight off a hostile government with is a must. (Again, that was my original point on what angle to take).

I'm being honest and Springfield shooter's response was spot on. He doesn't know what he is talking about and is repeating Bloomberg's propaganda and as a Democrat gets contributions from him to advance his agenda.

 

You're not being honest by posting pictures from an obscure website that don't prove anything and saying the AR-15 has been used by the military and is a military weapon. You're confusing it with the M-16 and M- 4 which are military weapons and different from AR-15. The same thing the anti freedom people say.

 

The fact is that the AR-15 is a rifle made for civilians and the best selling rifle in America for many reasons and has belonged on our streets and communities for decades. You admitted to being against 80% lowers too, what else are you against? There's a reason they exist and is not to make it easier for bad guys and nut jobs.

 

There's no angles to take, you either support the 2nd Amendment in it's entirety or you don't. Should everyone loose the right to own an AR'15 pistol for self defense and recreation because a criminal misuses it and breaks the laws? Should billionaires dictate to people and cram down their throats laws they have bought calling rifles "assault weapons" and standard capacity "high capacity" magazines. Should they dictate what caliber and how many rounds and how you can use for self defense when they don't dictate that to police? Police multiple time have fired dozens of rounds and not hit their targets and courts have said they're not responsible to defend you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to (once again) quote the exact post and quote I responded to.

 

 

 

full story at link

 

http://www.mysuburbanlife.com/2018/09/16/47th-illinois-house-candidates-address-state-finances-gun-violence-at-forum/aqwgh3v/

 

......The moderator also posed a question to the candidates regarding banning the manufacture, sale and possession of assault weapons in Illinois.

 

"I support practical, enforceable laws that keep weapons designed for the battlefield off our streets and out of our communities," Caffrey said.

 

He added the real problem facing the country is an inability to have a meaningful conversation about guns...…..

 

Mr. Caffrey, if you believe that a light caliber semi-automatic rifle (think AR15) belongs on the modern battlefield, you are incapable of having a meaningful conversation about guns.

 

 

@357 - Because if you want to have a "meaningful conversation", you have to be honest. If being honest ruins your argument, you probably need to rethink your position, or at least try a new angle. (In my original response to Springfield Shooter, I'm pretty sure I said to try a different angle).

 

@Flynn - Your response is an answer looking for an argument that I wasn't making.

 

If you want to know what difference does it make, that is a different question that what I responded to....and you may want to ask that to Springfield shooter....or anyone (everyone) else trying to argue the differences between a military weapon and non-military weapon.

 

My response to THAT question isn't a black and white answer. It is a conflicted view because to me, both sides have validity. Here is an example:

 

PSA has FINALLY started building a complete 8.5" .300 upper with a 9" rail that I want https://palmettostatearmory.com/blem-psa-8-5-300aac-blackout-1-8-phosphate-9-lightweight-m-lok-moe-sob-pistol-kit-5165449005.htmlor https://palmettostatearmory.com/psa-8-5-pistol-length-300aac-blackout-1-8-phosphate-9-m-lok-moe-sob-pistol-kit-5165448985.html (give me that with a nitrite barrel and EPT triggger and I'm sold....I like the 1st rail better than the 2nd. I will replace their +3" can with a Guntec 1.75" stubby.).

 

When they finally offer it, I will build it and most likely put on a LAW tactical folding stock kit. An 8.5" .300blk AR pistol with a folding stock is a crap ton of firepower in a tiny package. It is basically a mix of an AR-15 and an what the MP5 does. As a civie, do I really need this type of firepower in a tiny package? Probably not. Do I want this type of fire power easily available to bad guys and nut jobs (think 80% lowers)? No. And realistically, if there was ever some battle between the US military and civilians (which I don't think would happen), civies would get steam-rolled because things like armed drones and tanks would make short work of us. But with all that said...I CAN see the 2A argument that does not define a particular weapon allowed, and at least having something somewhat useful to be able to fight off a hostile government with is a must. (Again, that was my original point on what angle to take).

 

No, a .300 blackout pistol does NOT do what an MP5 does in any way. a 7.62 cartridge vs a 9mm? semi auto versus full auto? I'd take an MP5 any day of the week over any semi-auto AR, could I legally own one in this state. Also, pretty sure an MP5 is not a "weapon of war", but it sure packs a lot more firepower than an AR15.

 

The whole "weapons of war" angle is used by antis to inflame and stoke false pretenses, that people who have those guns are somehow going "beyond the limits of reason", and if you don't understand that, maybe it will dawn on you if you have to turn over your expensive build to the police for them to chop the receiver in half.

 

That's the only thing that's going to get accomplished by pretending that a semi-auto version with scary cosmetic features is any more a "weapon of war" than a kbar knife is.

 

I really don't understand what points you're trying to make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Flynn - At no point did I say it was invalid or negated. I keep saying over and over that I'm getting responses to a topic I wasn't even discussing. I fine with a turn in topics and I've even answered the question. You want to leave military vs non-military out of it...that is 100% fine by me. Go back and look at what I've typed over and over again. (Don't try to debate an AR as a military designed weapon....use a different angle such a fighting off a government). As for the "anti-gun hyperbole". I gave you my thoughts to a complex issue, and you cherry-picked my response by ignoring the fact that, I'm looking at building my 4th AR (4th lower, 6th upper), and that as far as these weapons go (AR, AK's ect), nothing in the 2nd dictates what types of weapons can be kept, and (again), being able to at least attempt to fight off a government is a must. BTW, I don't understand the Bundy Ranch example. If you are talking about what was happening in Oregon....the FBI just waited them out.

 

 

 

@357 - Here are some other sites, including the NRA. Even without the websites, just think about it. You've already seen pics of AR's with full-auto selectors. If you see an old pic of soldiers holding an "M-16" without a forward assist NOR a Brutton bump (brass deflector), it is probably an AR-15 (assuming you can't see AR-15 stamped on the lower in an old pic).

https://www.nrablog.com/articles/2017/9/remembering-the-air-force-general-who-helped-usher-in-the-m16-rifle/

https://gundigest.com/reviews/the-ar-16m16-the-rifle-that-was-never-supposed-to-be

http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/the-complete-history-of-the-ar-15-rifle

 

As far as you saying "you either support the 2nd Amendment in it's entirety or you don't". Every single person here has a different definition of "2A". Does that mean any type of gun for anyone? Mentally ill? Felons? Should there be background checks of any kind? A different age limit for pistols vs rifles? Concealed carry vs open carry? It is a sliding scale for a lot of people.

 

 

 

@Raw Power - I think everyone here would love an MP5. And when I say what an MP5 does, I'm talking a short barreled (8-9 inches...CQB) weapon being able to fire suppressed +200gr sub-sonic rounds, while also being able to fire supers by just removing the can. I know it is a 7.62 round, but it is also on pistol powder. So while not a pistol calibered weapon like the MP5, it is short(er) barreled, pistol powdered weapon. A bit of a hybrid. I'm not guying to buy an MP5, but I will probably build a .300 with an 8.5" barrel. A Guntec Stubby flash can is 1.75"s long including the threads (0.6"s). https://www.guntecusa.com/ar-308/muzzle-devices-308/ar-308-cal-stubby-slim-compact-flash-can.html S o the barrel + can is just over 9.6"'s long. Too bad we can't have suppressors in this state. But, I'll look in to frangible ammo (from the other thread). Yes, an odd weapon to build for the so called "anti" of the board.

 

And again, the whole weapons of war thing is something I keep saying "leave alone, take a different angle". I've stated this multiple times now:

 

My quote from post #8 "I think everyone is better off with the "armed civilian against the government" angle than trying to claim that it really isn't a military weapon."

 

My quote from post #19 "If you want to have an "honest conversation", you have to be honest. No one wants to be honest because it is admitting that the beloved AR is basically a battlefield weapon, and that gives "ammo" (pun intended) to those who want to take them away. That is why I say that you have to go with the "armed civilian against the government" route."

 

My quotes from post #34 "But with all that said...I CAN see the 2A argument that does not define a particular weapon allowed, and at least having something somewhat useful to be able to fight off a hostile government with is a must. (Again, that was my original point on what angle to take). "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get what you're saying. I encourage the debate and I understand that you're saying some things that are factually accurate, but we can't call these "weapons of war". Just like the term "assault rifle" has absolutely no meaning. These buzzwords are used to try to dictate the terms of the conversation, Just like "Modern Sporting Rifle" is.

 

I'm not going to use language that encourages the popular lexicon to shift towards an anti-gun stance. I have no interest in that. Most people will not understand the nuance of these terms, but I think they are critically and vitally important, because they determine the legal battles we will have to fight for our rights. I guarantee you that the antis feel that way as well.

 

I don't use "gun violence", "assault rifle" or "school shooting" without putting those terms in quotes, because they are terms invented by people who want to take away our constitutional rights.

 

I'm curious to hear more about your .300 BO build though... It was something that's intrigued me for some time.

 

I think we're in full agreement on most of us wanting an MP5, even if we don't NEED one. No one questions why someone wants a Ferrari, or a yacht. I'm just not that flashy of a guy, and that sort of thing never interested me. Shooting targets and running around in the mud does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm drooling over a .300 pistol build. I have zero use for it other than trying to convince myself that I can use it for HD with frangible ammo, but the "why I'm building it" does not matter. I want it.

 

With an 8.5" barrel and a Guntec stubby, the end of the can should extend past the end of the 9" rail by about a half an inch. Should look similar to this on the business end.

http://i.imgur.com/9h0Rpgn.jpg

 

 

 

 

Not sure if I'll do an SBA3 brace or another KAK brace. Leaning towards the SBA3 because of the buffer tube. Either way it will be a pistol build.

The LAW tactical adapter will cost me +$200 and is probably money wasted. But just knowing I could fold this gun up and stuff it in a backpack is all kinds of awesomeness. With a CCL, I can take it with me anywhere.

 

http://ontargetmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/PWS-MK107-FoldedC-1024x708.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@2smartby1/2, the NRA article says it was tested by the army in 1958 which is 60 years ago. The link says the AR-15 has been made for the civilian market since 1989. Is the AR-15 used by the military? The answer is no so is not a military rifle but a rifle made for civilians and the best selling rifle in America and not an "assault weapon". I didn't see AR-15 in any of the pictures.

 

There's only one definition of the 2nd amendment and it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. All the laws restricting that right are infringements. Assault weapon was coined by Hitler for propaganda and used for propaganda to disarm people in America. Who would have thought.

 

I agree with Raw Power on "weapons of war" and "assault weapons" and "gun violence" which are used as propaganda to blame guns and as an excuse to pass laws to make them illegal and take away as many firearms as possible and eventually all firearms. Every weapon to them is an assault weapon even some shotguns.

 

Only anti freedom people call an AR-15 a weapon of war to scare people to ban them. They say why do you need a weapon of war. Since they're rifles made for civilians and protected by the bill of rights, there's nothing they can do about it except through lies, propaganda and payoffs. Why give them ammunition to use against us, they monitor this site. When they outlaw modern rifles then they will start calling the rest assault weapons and outlaw them too. A musket back in the day was a weapon of war, but civilians owned them as the founding fathers intended. Paeople even had canons back then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Come on man, there really isn't much that can be said on this. If you want an honest conversation, the history of the AR-15 isn't really debatable. AR-10 led to the AR-15. Armalite was purchased by Colt. Colt AR's were still marked Armalite AR-15 model 601, and AR-15 model 602. AR-15 model 603's were eventually renamed XM-16's when accepted be the rest of the armed forces. The Air-Force was to first to buy AR-15's (601's) and continued to use AR-15's up until the 90's. Colt AR-15 604's were made specifically for the Air Force (like the 601's and 602's they are "slick sides".0 Eventually the Air Force switched over to M-16's, but the reality is that they are all the same weapon. Those links specifically stated that AR-15's (sometimes called CAR-15's) were used in Vietnam. Google USAF mixmaster for more info on other AR's later converted. (here is a nice link http://www.sadefensejournal.com/wp/?p=3765). (here is another link were you can see Air Force lowers that say BOTH AR-15 and M-16 on them https://bpullignwolnet.dotster.com/retroblackrifle/ModGde/CrbGde/USAFGdeCrb.html) There was already a 50 year old picture of an AR-15 being advertised for civilians posted....it isn't like AR-15 is some new weapon that just fell from the sky in the 80's.

 

But as others have mentioned, it really does not matter....and my whole point is basically saying...F it. Yes, it was designed on the battlefield. But it rendered made legal (no automatic fire) and is protected by the 2nd. These weapons gives civilians something to attempt to fight back with if the government turns on its citizens. I get not wanting to give lurkers info...but the truth is the truth. Honestly, a lot of AR-15's are not even modeled after the standard M-16's they became (unless it is a retro build). They are modeled after our special forces weapons......including the ammo (5.56 55gr FMJ and 62gr LAP are for losers....can you say 5.56 77gr OTM?). My 10.5" is a lot like an MK18. I've been flirting with swapping my 20" barrel for a 18" barrel to make it more like an MK12. I'm going to build a .300BLK.

 

Here is an awesome slideshow from Robert S Silvers (of AAC - Advanced Armament Corp) on the .300 Blackout. The top of the 2nd slide literally states that it is an MK18/MP5/MP7 replacement. https://www.slideshare.net/HassanSakha/the-300-aac-blackout-low-visibility-carbine

 

Who am I fooling in trying to say that it isn't a military weapon? I guess I could call it a "military style" weapon, but that really won't change the mind of someone who wants to take it a way....so screw it. My thought: My AR's are not full auto, so they are legal. You can't have them because 2A...and honestly they are too popular and there are way too many of them already floating around to really do anything about it at this point. That can be both good and bad....but....the AR popularity explosion train left the station a over a decade ago....so it is what it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@2smartby1/2, It does matter and is a big difference and what you're saying is not true. AR'15's are made for civilians and are semi automatic rifles. All the examples you provided despite the name are fully automatic military weapons mostly from the 60's. Look at the pictures and the safety switch it says safe, semi and Auto. There's no denying the fact these rifles were made for the military and these are military grade and weapons of war.

 

There's also no denying the fact that AR-15's made today are designed and made for civilians and are civilian semi automatic rifles and not "assault weapons" and "weapons of war" which is a big lie and propaganda. Are you saying that semi automatic and automatic rifles are the same? That's what the antis say when they lie and classify semi automatic civilian rifles the same as fully automatic military assault weapons.

 

Facts and words matter and are important and if you want to have an honest conversation don't insist and say semi automatic and fully automatic rifles are the same. They are lying because military style assault weapons have been banned since 1986. What they want to ban now is semi automatic rifles made for civilians whith propaganda and lies by calling them automatic machine guns (assault weapons or military style). You should call it what it is weapon made for civilians or civilian style or modern sporting rifle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If I've said something that isn't true or factually correct, please quote it. I'm trying to stay accurate.

 

Early in this thread I stated that it is either mis-conception or mis-information about the history of the AR-15. I'm not sure what the source it is, but it seems like there is a desire to rewrite history...as if if in the 80's, the AR-15 was introduced as weapon designed to be the civilian version of the M-16.

FACTS:

*AR-15s came before M-16's

*AR-15's were used in combat and by our armed forces (and other countries).

*Original M-16's are simply AR-15's that have been renamed.

*AR-15's for the military were select fire.

*The USAF continued to use AR-15's until the 1990's

*AR-15's have been available to civilians (semi-automatic) since roughly 1963...and have ALWAYS been for sale to civilians since that time.

 

The last three are important (to this point) because it means that the AR-15 isn't something new, and was not designed as the civilian version of the M-16. For about 30 years, select fire AR-15's were being used by the USAF while semi-auto AR-15's were being sold to civilians. The AR-15 is a bit unusual because it was renamed the M-16, but it is no different than the AK, SCAR, Tavor, etc. They are all military weapons that have been "de-autoed" for so they can be sold to civilians. Yes, current AR's are semi-auto only...but so is every other military style weapon sold here. Modern AR-15's are not designed for civilians because civilian versions of the AR-15 have been around for over 50 years....there is nothing new or specially designed about them. (Google Colt SPS-1)

 

Also, can you quote where I said semi-automatic rifles and fully automatic rifles are the same? I'm pretty sure I've stated (multiple times) that the difference is the selector switch. What I have stated is that with a few exceptions for certain groups and situations, our military trains in semi-auto, not fully automatic....but I've never said they are the same.

 

Now, I personally do not call these weapons assault weapons or weapons of war. I also do not call them modern sporting rifles because that is propaganda coming from THIS side. I tend to call them (if I have to classify them) as assault type/style or military type/style weapons. Sometimes I will call them "civie versions"....but civie version is just short for "civilian version of a military weapon". And let us be honest, a big selling point of these weapons is because they ARE combat proven, military weapons...or at least as close as we can legally get to what the military uses without signing up for an all-expense paid trip to some crap-hole country where guys with AK's are actually shooting back.

 

We are not fooling anyone, just OWN IT.

https://www.ammoland.com/2011/09/i-dont-like-the-term-modern-sporting-rifle/#axzz5TGIfvL4l

 

Love this ad from Daniel Defense..Mil-spec+ "Use what THEY use"....but yeah...we are trying to pretend these are not basically military weapons.

https://danieldefense.com/daniel-defense-mk18-mil-spec.html

 

Research the FN SCAR (how it got its name and what is SCAR stands for)...I think someone would be justified in calling it an assault weapon....even if it is a semi-automatic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@2smartby1/2, the few examples you showed don't prove anything and were tests and 4 cobbled together by that Air force unit. Name and advertisements aside, can we agree that semi automatic rifles like the AR-15 are made for civilians and automatic rifles are made for the military? That's the big difference. You cannot show a document or article of an order or procurement for AR-15's to be used by the military. The M-16 was purchased by governments to be used by the military and there's differences between the two besides the big difference of fully automatic. I call it wat it is a rifle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a statement of fact, none of my modern sporting rifles are AR15s or M16s. Not a single one has an AR15 or M16 nomenclature, nor were any of mine made by military contractors, albeit they are quite similarly patterned modern sporting rifles but regardless they were in fact manufactured exclusively for civilian use and conform to all civilian design requirements, they have also never seen or been used in military service, especially true for the ones I manufactured myself for 100% civilian use in compliance with civilian design requirements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ATF declares AR-15 and AK-style rifles ‘standard for hunting activities’

 

https://thefifthcolumnnews.com/2017/02/atf-declares-ar-15-and-ak-style-rifles-standard-for-hunting-activities/

 

One of the more interesting concepts in the paper is an apparent admission from ATF that rifles deemed “assault weapons” are, in fact, not. The paper cites a change in consumer habits and notes that designs considered “assault weapons” 20 years ago are, today, part of the normal sporting community’s weapon choices. It states that popular weapon designs such as the AK-style and AR-15 are “now standard for hunting activities.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ATF declares AR-15 and AK-style rifles ‘standard for hunting activities’

 

https://thefifthcolumnnews.com/2017/02/atf-declares-ar-15-and-ak-style-rifles-standard-for-hunting-activities/

 

One of the more interesting concepts in the paper is an apparent admission from ATF that rifles deemed “assault weapons” are, in fact, not. The paper cites a change in consumer habits and notes that designs considered “assault weapons” 20 years ago are, today, part of the normal sporting community’s weapon choices. It states that popular weapon designs such as the AK-style and AR-15 are “now standard for hunting activities.”

 

The ATF also stood behind the AR15 and AK47 as not being military weapons in their recent settlement with Defense Distributed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@2smartby1/2, the few examples you showed don't prove anything and were tests and 4 cobbled together by that Air force unit. Name and advertisements aside, can we agree that semi automatic rifles like the AR-15 are made for civilians and automatic rifles are made for the military? That's the big difference. You cannot show a document or article of an order or procurement for AR-15's to be used by the military. The M-16 was purchased by governments to be used by the military and there's differences between the two besides the big difference of fully automatic. I call it wat it is a rifle.

 

 

The first document is from the testing of the AR-15 in 1960. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a953009.pdf

This one is from 1967 is discusses the procurement of AR-15's (check table of contents). It also states that regardless of designation (AR-15, XM-16, or M-16A1), almost all models are identical. https://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/star/images/256/2560131001a.pdf.

Here is another article on the history. https://www.pewpewtactical.com/history-of-the-m16/

The pictures are cobbled because the history is muddy. We basically have the same gun going by different names and model numbers depending on the branch, unit, and configuration. For instance, one particular difference seems to be that the Air Force specifically went without Forward Assist. Colt 601's and 602's were AR-15's don't have it. Colt 603's were AR-15's that did have it, and that was renamed the XM-16. That is the model most of the military went with, except the Air Force. They appear tho have went with Colt 604's. You will see other models like Colt 610's and 653's with the USAF, while Colt 609's and Colt 654's went to other branches. The USAF would name their weapon (with AR15 stamped on the side) the GAU-5A, which has it's own problems because the Air Force is now using the same name for brand new downed pilot weapons.

 

I didn't want to link to different forums, but there are some nice discussions and pics on USAF AR's.

https://www.ar15.com/forums/AR-15/USAF-GAU-5A/123-726284/

 

With all that said....

YES, I agree that any "modern built" AR-15 is semi-auto only, and those go to civilians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me explain my position:

 

My whole point about the being correct on the history of the AR actually started because when I first got into AR's, I used to think that AR-15's came after M-16's and/or were designed as the civilian model of the M-16. That is what I had seen in all of the pro-gun arguments on the internet (AR-15's were never used in combat, never used my our military, etc.....) and I took it as gospel. I did a bit of digging because something never sat right (if AR stands for ArmaLite, and Stoner invented in AR-15 in the 50's, who invented the M-16 and when?). Once I discovered the truth, I became angry because I felt as if I had swallowed the internet Kool-Aid instead of doing my own research. That is why my position on is more "Yes, it was designed as a military weapon....so what"....as opposed to trying to explain it away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On that ATF whitepaper, I don't want to argue against the position of the paper, but I do want to caution folks to read the entire document first. That particular document goes over far more items than just what to call AR's and AK's. And more specifically, the very end of the document states that it is not the ATF's official opinion or practice, just one person's (a very high up person!) opinion.

 

 

The opinions expressed within this white paper are not those of the ATF; they are merely the ideas and opinions of this writer. They are provided for internal use within ATF and DOJ and not intended to be public. They are also general thoughts that cannot be taken as exacting language regarding policy or quotable specifics. Additional specific details can be provided to further these general discussions.

 

 

 

We shall see what comes of it. If it were an official position, I would assume that would mean that any Assault Weapons ban that ban's an AR-15 would be null and void. But that particular language at the end is a good hint that as someone who lives in Aurora, I should continue to keep my weapons in "pistol format". I don't think I could show that document to a judge if I get busted with an AR in rifle format and....and assume the prosecutor won't point out that final paragraph.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dang it... I just noticed that the 2nd link (from 1967 procurement) wasn't working. I think there might be an extra space at the end of the link. Here is is again.

 

https://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/star/images/256/2560131001a.pdf

 

And here is a different doc from 1966

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a953115.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get what you guys are saying and no argument from me about being a "military weapon"; but...

It certainly is no military grade weapon in today's world.

It's kinda like saying my buddy's 1861 Springfield percussion rifle, which many were used in the Civil War, is a "military weapon of war" and our streets would be safer if they were banned. If that was all jerks had, they'd commit crimes with them - period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We shall see what comes of it. If it were an official position

 

IMO the DD court settlement as written excludes at minimum AR (since AR receiver plans were part of their catalog and lawsuit) and likely AK rifles (don't know for sure if AK receiver plans were part of their catalog) as 'military equipment' and IMO that makes it pretty 'official' since it is now part of a court documented settlement from the DoS and any going back on that definition and calling AR style receivers 'military equipment' would almost certainly violate the settlement agreement...

 

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4600187-Defense-Distributed-Settlement-Agreement.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...